Some Twitter users are speculating that the Aurora, Colo., shooter was inspired by comments made by Rush Limbaugh. The shooting occurred at a midnight premiere of the movie, “The Dark Knight Rises.” On Tuesday July 17, Limbaugh said on his radio show that the name of the villain in the movie is a thinly-veiled dig at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney:

RUSH: Have you heard this new movie, the Batman movie, what is it, The Dark Knight Lights Up or whatever the name is. That’s right, Dark Knight Rises. Lights Up, same thing. Do you know the name of the villain in this movie? Bane. The villain in The Dark Knight Rises is named Bane, B-a-n-e. What is the name of the venture capital firm that Romney ran and around which there’s now this make-believe controversy? Bain. The movie has been in the works for a long time. The release date’s been known, summer 2012 for a long time. Do you think that it is accidental that the name of the really vicious fire breathing four eyed whatever it is villain in this movie is named Bane?

This summer’s much-anticipated Hollywood blockbuster, “The Dark Knight Rises,” is getting an unusual boost from Democrats and other foes of Mitt Romney who are eager to tie the Gotham crushing villain to the GOP presidential candidate. Their angle: the mask-wearing, “Venom” gas breathing bad guy has a name that sounds just like Romney’s former investment firm that President Obama has been blasting as a jobs killer.

“Bane” is the terrorist in the new movie who drives the caped crusader out of semi-retirement in the final Batman movie. Democrats, who believe they have Romney on the ropes over the president’s assault on his leadership at Bain Capital, said the comparisons are too rich to ignore.

“It has been observed that movies can reflect the national mood,” said Democratic advisor and former Clinton aide Christopher Lehane. “Whether it is spelled Bain and being put out by the Obama campaign or Bane and being out by Hollywood, the narratives are similar: a highly intelligent villain with offshore interests and a past both are seeking to cover up who had a powerful father and is set on pillaging society,” he added.

The left says that we need to take a day off from the political divide in honor of the Aurora tragedy – even as they drag politics into the tragedy in Aurora by turning the day into an “Let’s overturn the 2nd Amendment and ban guns” issue. It doesn’t seem to matter that the most violent cities in America are ALL liberal cities with the most stringent gun laws.

The reporters in question posit that perhaps the increase in the number of pedestrians struck by cars last year, after four years of decline, is because people are out exercising more, choosing to walk when possible instead of hopping in the car. TBD has a good post in which the GHSA’s executive director, Barbara Harsha, explaining that she never said that at all. The group isn’t sure exactly what caused the uptick in deaths—and they certainly can’t pin it on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” initiative.

Now, do I think for a single second that Michelle Obama’s initiative should be blamed for the spike in pedestrian deaths?

No.

Then again, I don’t think like a liberal.

Sarah Palin got widely blamed for Jared Loughner’s shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and many others in Tucson Arizona for no other reason than that she had a map that “targeted” vulnerable Democrats – Giffords included – for political defeat.

It wasn’t just the far-left that did this; even supposed “mainstream” journalists were all over themselves denouncing Sarah Palin for her inciting violence.

They didn’t really give a damn that Democrats themselves routinely used the same sort of maps to “target” Republicans:

Nor did they think it worthwhile to mention that Bob Beckel – the Democrat strategist who ran Walter Mondale’s campaign – claimed that he invented “targeting” maps. And that, therefore, the worse thing Republicans did was respond to this act of hate and violence by fighting back.

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.”

We have since learned that there is absolutely no connection whatsoever between Sarah Palin and anything that Sarah Palin said or did or posted and Tucson gunman Jared Loughner.

But that didn’t stop the rabid left, did it?

But allow me to think like a liberal, for a second…

Okay, I’m back from the sudden urge to vomit that overcame me. My stomach is now as devoid of its contents as my mind of rationality. I now return to my experiment of thinking like a liberal.

If we apply the left’s “guilty until proven innocent” tactic on Michelle Obama, where do we end up?

With all due respect, there is FAR more evidence linking Michelle Obama to the traffic deaths of pedestrians (after all, she did encourage people to get out there and walk, and she should have known that many people who were stupid enough to take advice from her in the first place would be too stupid to survive an encounter with the real world).

It seems obvious that, applying liberal methodology, we should immediately brand Michelle Obama a mass-murderer. And we should continue to denounce her until we do a study and determine that every single pedestrian killed had never once heard her instruction to “move.”

And, of course, if so much as one pedestrian causality ever heard Michelle Obama say “let’s move,” then obviously Michelle Obama as much as killed that poor victim.

And all we need to condemn Michelle Obama for her “Let’s Murder” initiative is to apply the same standard that the left applied to Sarah Palin.

One can only look at the moral and psychological insanity of the left and whistle in amazement.

The demonic left heard that a Democrat U.S. Representative had been shot (never mind that she was one of the more conservative Democrats in the House) and immediately concluded that a Republican conservative tea party member – well, make that ALL Republicans, ALL conservatives and ALL tea party members – were guilty of the crime.

Democrats IMMEDIATELY resorted to the worst kind of demonizing, hatred and lies:

But that was a lie. Jared Loughner never served a day in the military, let alone pull a combat tour. In fact, the Army threw him out of one of their recruiting stations when they found out he was a pothead.

“There was a lot of talk about lucid dreaming and understanding reality. . . . And there were a lot of books and movies . . . things that I never would have heard about or watched — things like Loose Change about the 9/11 conspiracy.”

According to reviews, Zeitgeist is anti-Christian, anti-George Bush and anti-capitalism. And I just scratch my head bleeding wondering which of the two parties would be those three things. The plot of Loose Change can be summed up in three words” Bush did it.

Let’s just put aside the facts which all line up to say that if Jared Loughner was anything, he was a far-left liberal loon.

And let’s just put the icing on the cake. Was Jared Loughner a conservative or was he a liberal? Let’s ask the liberal “newspaper of record,” a.k.a. The New York Times:

“He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government.”

Bingo. If The New York Slimes says it, it clearly must be true.

Jared Loughner was a liberal.

If you listen to or watch or read any source that ever once mentioned that right wing rhetoric or conservative anger or any such thing contributed to the Tucson, Arizona shooting, you are tuning in to a demonstrated source of propaganda and lies.

Every Democrat politician (and like the demons who called themselves “Legion, for we are many” in Luke 8:30, they are legion) and mainstream media figure who alluded to conservative anger in this tragedy should be forced to resign in disgrace for their disgrace of the truth.

The following article will consist in two parts: 1) A detailing of just a few of the profoundly hateful rhetoric that comes out of the left on a routine basis, which clearly refutes the idea that some sort of “climate of hate” is being generated by the right wing; and 2) my argument why “political rhetoric” – which is free speech that should be protected by anyone who values American society – should have nothing to do with acts of violence.

Allow me to state at the outset that, when we look at Jared Loughner, what we find is that he had a grudge against Rep. Gabrielle Giffords dating back to 2007. That grudge predates Sarah Palin; it predates the Tea Party movement; it predates the so-called “rightwing rhetoric” against Barack Obama. In fact, Loughner’s hatred of Rep. Giffords actually occurred during the LEFTWING hatred targeting George W. Bush and Republicans. And we find that while Loughner nowhere mentioned Sarah Palin, the tea party movement, ObamaCare, conservatives, or anything “right wing,” he DID repeatedly mention his belief that George Bush was responsible for engineering the 9/11 attacks.

Let’s take a moment and look at the hatred of the left, and realize just how amazingly laughable it is for the left to claim the moral high ground regarding any “climate of hate,” and recognize that they did nothing more than despicably try to seize political advantage from a terrible tragedy:

■ “I’m waiting for the day when I pick it up, pick up a newspaper or click on the Internet and find out he’s choked to death on his own throat fat or a great big wad of saliva or something, you know, whatever. Go away, Rush, you make me sick!” — Left-wing radio host Mike Malloy on the January 4, 2010 Mike Malloy Show, talking about Rush Limbaugh going to the hospital after suffering chest pains.

■ MSNBC’s Chris Matthews in 2009 fantasized about the death of Rush Limbaugh: “Somebody’s going to jam a CO2 pellet into his head and he’s going to explode like a giant blimp”

■ Author/humorist P.J. O’Rourke: “It’s the twilight of the radio loud-mouth, you know? I knew it from the moment the fat guy-”
Host Bill Maher: “You mean Rush Limbaugh and Sean-”
O’Rourke: “-from the moment the fat guy refused to share his drugs….”Maher: “You mean the OxyContin that he was on?…Why couldn’t he have croaked from it instead of Heath Ledger?” — HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher, February 8, 2008.

■ MSNBC’s Amy Robach in 2006 mildly wondered if “Death of a President” movie depicting the imagined assassination of President Bush was “poor taste or, as some say, thought-provoking?”

■ On his radio show in 2009, Ed Schultz wished for Dick Cheney’s death: “He is an enemy of the country, in my opinion, Dick Cheney is, he is an enemy of the country … Lord, take him to the Promised Land, will you?”

■ Also on his radio show, in 2010, Schultz shouted: “Dick Cheney’s heart’s a political football. We ought to rip it out and kick it around and stuff it back in him!”

■ Then-Air America host Montel Williams in 2009 urged Congresswoman Michele Bachmann to kill herself: “Slit your wrist! Go ahead! I mean, you know, why not? I mean, if you want to – or, you know, do us all a better thing. Move that knife up about two feet. I mean, start right at the collarbone.”

■ Writing on the Huffington Post in 2007, radio host Charles Karel Bouley mocked: “I hear about Tony Snow and I say to myself, well, stand up every day, lie to the American people at the behest of your dictator-esque boss and well, how could a cancer NOT grow in you? Work for Fox News, spinning the truth in to a billion knots and how can your gut not rot?”

■ “I’m just saying if he did die, other people, more people would live. That’s a fact.” — Host Bill Maher on his HBO show Real Time, March 2, 2007, discussing how a few commenters at a left-wing blog were upset that an attempt to kill Vice President Cheney in Afghanistan had failed.

■ “Earlier today, a rental truck carried a half a million ballots from Palm Beach to the Florida Supreme Court there in Tallahassee. CNN had live helicopter coverage from the truck making its way up the Florida highway, and for a few brief moments, America held the hope that O.J. Simpson had murdered Katherine Harris.” — Bill Maher on ABC’s Politically Incorrect, November 30, 2000.

■ Host Tina Gulland: “I don’t think I have any Jesse Helms defenders here. Nina?”NPR’s Nina Totenberg: “Not me. I think he ought to be worried about what’s going on in the Good Lord’s mind, because if there is retributive justice, he’ll get AIDS from a transfusion, or one of his grandchildren will get it.” — Exchange on the July 8, 1995 Inside Washington, after Helms said the government spends too much on AIDS.

■ “I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease….He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” — USA Today columnist and Pacifica Radio talk show host Julianne Malveaux on Justice Clarence Thomas, November 4, 1994 PBS To the Contrary.

I have further documented numerous concrete acts of violence by the left in two articles here and here which I wrote during the debates that occurred last year when Democrats falsely demonized the right.

Furthermore, you should do a review of history. Go back to the 1960s and consider movements and organizations such as the Weathermen, Students for a Democratic Society, the Black Panthers, the anti-war movement, the radical environmentalist movement, and the violence that has been all-too typical of the left.

I believe by now I’ve made my point.

Before moving on, allow me to demonstrate how top Democrats have deliberately manufactured blame and guilt at conservatives for crimes that liberals and Democrats in fact committed.

First, there is Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. reflecting on how his Uncle Jack (JFK) was essentially killed by right wing conservative hatred as a device to “me to” the liberal movement to demonize conservatives as being responsible for the Tuscon, Arizona shooting by a deranged psychopath. There was only one problem: JFK was murdered by a communist named Lee Harvey Oswald, who somehow is never mentioned a single time in Kennedy Jr.’s fabricated account.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi: “I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw … I saw this myself in the late ’70s in San Francisco,” Pelosi said, choking up and with tears forming in her eyes. “This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and … I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made.”

What’s wrong with Pelosi’s words and tears? Well, in demagoguing conservatives for their climate of violence-generating hate, she nowhere reflects upon the fact that Harvey Milk and George Moscone were murdered by a Democrat who was angry because his fellow Democrats had not reappointed him to his government job. And her equating these murders with right wing violence is not just absurd, but evil.

Both of these accounts are readily historically verifiable. The Democrats in question literally fabricate history in order to blame the party and ideology that had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with these murders. What we see are people who are clearly close enough to the events in question to know that what they are saying is not true. They are either liars without shame, or they have literally so committed themselves to false ideology that they have used every possible device of rationalization to believe obvious lies. You can take your pick.

So you take an event like the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (along with the murder of conservative Republican-appointed federal judge John Roll, btw), and demonize conservatives for it, and it is merely one more documented case of obvious demonization that merely serves to demonstrates that if you want to see hate, just look at liberals.

And, yes, if deranged monster Jared Loughner was anything, he was a liberal. One thing is certain; he certainly was not a conservative, and he certainly was not influenced by any “rightwing climate of hate.”

Clearly, I did not attempt to prove that conservatives have not said anything hateful. First of all it would be impossible to prove a negative; and second whether conservatives have said hateful things about liberals really isn’t the point here. The point is that when Democrats denounce the right for “hate,” they merely demonstrate that they are hypocrites without any shame whatsoever.

This baseless and hateful charge about rightwing hate being responsible for the Tucson shooting that was recently repeated by dozens of Democrat elected officials, hundreds of mainstream media journalists, and thousands upon thousands of liberal bloggers, literally becomes a tacit acknowledgment that it is in fact the left that practices hate.

Tomorrow: Part 2, on how free speech political rhetoric should be and is unrelated to acts of violence: “On The So-Called Link Between Political Rhetoric And Violence.”

This was a question that Bill O’Reilly asked on his Friday night program. And it seems rather impossible for a liberal to answer.

Sheriff Clarence Dupnik (and if that doesn’t sound like the name of an abject idiot, I don’t know what does) has been so busy being a liberal ideologue Democrat he really hasn’t had time to be an actual law enforcement officer.

If he were acting like a sheriff, he would be trying to calm and reassure the people, and limit himself to describing the facts.

Instead, he’s doing the precise opposite of what any legitimate sheriff would do: he’s doing everything he can to stir up paranoia and invent fact-free theories.

“The kind of rhetoric that flows from people like Rush Limbaugh, in my judgment he is irresponsible, uses partial information, sometimes wrong information,” Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said today. “[Limbaugh] attacks people, angers them against government, angers them against elected officials and that kind of behavior in my opinion is not without consequences.”

Frankly, I think as absolutely nuts as Loughner is, his theory is actually far more sane than Dupnik’s. After all, not only is Obama constantly lecturing the nation, but he has access to our water supply. Rush can talk to people for three hours a day, but he can’t insinuate mind-controlling chemicals into our porridge like Obama can.

But let’s put the fact that Dupnik’s ideas are absolutely warped to go along with being absolutely irresponsible. Let’s take Dupnik’s garbage at face value for just a moment. Let’s suppose that Dupnik genuinely believed that right wing hate had truly created a hostile climate.

Dupnik has told any reporter who would put him on television that, in spite of not having a single solitary shred of evidence (something which non-Democrat sheriff’s actually care about), he knows that right wing rhetoric has heated up the environment and created a hateful climate.

So here’s the question: knowing this, knowing that there was a conservative-caused poisonous environment creating a clear and present danger, why didn’t this incompetent disgrace put a protective detail on Gabrielle Giffords? By his own acknowledgment, this incompetent moron (and did I mention he’s a Democrat?) knew that she was in danger, and refused to lift a finger to protect her.

If Dupnik had a deputy at Giffords’ event – as he should have, given what he “knew” – most or even ALL of the carnage would have been stopped. And yet this buffoon who had it in his power to prevent this terrible tragedy has been doing nothing but blaming conservatives who had absolutely nothing to do with what happened.

He should be sharing Jared Loughner’s cell, comparing notes with his companion as to how Rush, or the government, or space aliens, or whatever is controlling people’s minds.

Ed Shultz: “Did you ever think of drawing your firearm or did you make the determination that you didn’t have to?”

Joe Zamudio: “Sir, when I came through the door I had my hand on the butt of my pistol and I clicked the safety off. I was ready to kill him. But I didn’t have to do that and I was very blessed that I didn’t have to go to that place.”

Schultz: “You would have used that firearm?”

Zamudio: “You’re damn right!”

And pardon my saying so, but damn right he was damn right.

But it’s important to recognize that Joe Zamudio did NOT run unarmed toward a killer who was gunning unarmed people down. Joe Zamudio was armed himself. Rather than being a helpless target, Joe Zamudio was a warrior who ran toward a shooting scene because he knew that he could fight the slimebag on his own terms.

Had he not been so armed, the events would almost certainly have been very different – and far more tragic.

It’s still not clear exactly what happened immediately before Joe Zamudio ran onto the scene and put the forces of light over the top in a deadly battle with the forces of darkness.

The man who started the takedown of monster Jared Loughner was a 74 year-old retired Army colonel named Bill Badger (and thank God for a soldier to have been in the right place at the right time) who had been shot in the head and bleeding heavily. Somehow even though seriously wounded he managed to grab Loughner by the wrist and took the killer down to the ground.

TUCSON, Ariz. — Three people helped subdue a gunman accused of attempting to assassinate Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killing six people at a political event in Arizona.

Pima Co. Sheriff Clarence Dupnik says Patricia Maisch (MAYSH) was waiting in line with her husband to get a photo with Giffords. When the shooting started, she ran up to the suspect and grabbed the empty magazine, then grabbed a full magazine as he was loading it into the gun.

Two men helped subdue the suspect – Roger Sulzgeber (SULZ-gay-ber), who was also in line, and Joseph Zimudie (Zah-MOO-die), who was at a nearby Walgreens and heard the shooting.

Maisch says she believes the two men got to the gun the same time she got to the magazine.

Ms Maisch told Channel 4 News that she had been waiting in line to meet the Congresswoman when she heard what she realised was a gunshot.

“In that split second I had to make a decision whether to run or to lay down on the ground,” she told our Washington Correspondent, Sarah Smith.

“I decided I would be a target if I ran because the gunman was now just steps from me and I lay down.”

A teenage girl next to her – being shielded by her mother – was shot three times.

“I was laying there on the concrete wondering how bad it was going to be and how it was going to hurt,” she said.

“And, instead of a gunshot , the shooter was now on the ground just on top of me nearly – and there were two gentlemen on top of him.

Somebody said ‘get the gun’, and I was already up on my knees and over his waist. The gun was out of my reach, but he was reaching into his pocket with his left hand and pulling out a magazine, which fell on the sidewalk.

“I managed to get the magazine before he could get it. I got it secure in my hand.”

While Ms Maisch knelt on the gunman’s legs and ankles to stop him flailing, she noticed that one of the men also helping hold him down was bleeding from a head wound

You get a sense of just how critical the moment was that Joe Zamudio sprinted onto the scene. Patricia Maisch was lying on the ground waiting to die when all of a sudden a heroic struggle began to take place.

But just how long was a seriously wounded and bleeding 74 year-old man going to be able to take on and control a 22 year-old psychopath? Not very.

Had Joe Zamudio not arrived at the moment he did, a terrible and tragic scene would have been at least TWICE as terrible and tragic. Police were still minutes away.

And Joe Zamudio was able to race toward the gunfire when everyone else was literally running away from it because he was armed. With a gun.

Now, allow me to digress for a moment to point out that most mainstream media accounts make out Patricia Maisch to be the hero who disarmed the shooter. Why? Well, because the colonel is a military man – and the left despises the military. And Joe Zamudio (more about what the left says about him in a moment) was carrying a gun. Which means he’s clearly a villain.

“Looks like white trash, talks like white trash and for all intents and purposes, IS WHITE TRASH. This thug said he “carries” a gun and unlocked the safety and was “ready to kill” (in his words). He later went on to say he was “blessed” that he didn’t have to. Can we say oxymoron here? Sickening.”

You and I have a very different notion of what is “sickening,” you slimeball. Tag, you’re it.

I took a screenshot of ABC’s website, because you know this is going to be taken down – liberals and “moral courage” go together like peanut butter and spinach – and liberals will be denying that, yes, they really ARE this amazingly vile and loathsome:

[Click on image to enlarge]

How many times do I have to say this? If you are a liberal, you ought to be ashamed. Just ashamed.

And the above gets right to the heart of why I got into blogging: because while I haven’t had to display the courage of Joe Zamudio, I’ll be damned if I’m going to do nothing and allow depraved moral idiot liberal slimeballs like our example above to spew his filth.

The mainstream media leftists are going to tell this story in their own image, but the fact of the matter is that if it hadn’t been for that “white trash” “thug” Joe Zamudio and his gun, no rational mind even wants to think about how many more innocent people would have been murdered or terribly wounded.

There’s an interesting thing about such shootings involving crazed psychos: the degree of carnage is directly related to how long it takes before another gun shows up. The cities and states with the most restrictive gun control laws have the highest levels of gun violence because criminals don’t care about laws.

Pilate therefore said to Him, “So You are a king?” Jesus answered, “You say correctly that I am a king. For this I have been born, and for this I have come into the world, to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth hears My voice.” Pilate said to Him, “What is truth?” – John 18:37-38

Well, one thing’s for sure: the truth sure isn’t what the Democrat rhetoric is spouting in the aftermath of the Tucson, AZ shooting that resulted in the wounding of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords among 19 shooting victims, with six killed.

I was amazed to see the thousands of hits an old article I wrote had recently generated. The reason? Democrats who had demonized Sarah Palin for her “targeting strategy” – which Democrats themselves routinely do – are now demonizing her again because one of the vulnerable districts Palin identified well over a year ago was Rep. Gabrielle Giffords’ District 8.

And then there are the “Jared Loughner Facebook accounts” which “have all right wing books, websites, and people that he points to.” Just more false flag operations by Democrats to falsely associate conservatives with the psycho assassin.

This document is circulating, purportedly showing Jared Loughner is a registered Republican.

There are two reasons why the document is faked, and one official proclamation that undermines it:

TUCSON is spelled TUSCON. People who live in a city do not mispell it’s name.

If you go to the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission website and put in the address listed on this “registration” it comes up in Senator District 26. This fraud voter reg says District 27. (Hat tip, Brytani)

A blatantly partisan ideologue Newsweek “journalist” isn’t one bit disappointed in the sea of lies that characterize the Democrat response to this tragedy. Far from it:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

This little Joseph Goebbels minion basically wants Barack Obama to deliver a “State of the Reich” Address and demagogue this tragic shooting into a demand to round up all the conservatives and put them in camps.

The strategy that the little Newsweek rodent recommends has been successfully tried in the past – by one Adolf Hitler. Let us hope that the “new bipartisan Obama” (although there is this caveat) is now getting his advice from more humans and fewer rodents.

Democrats and their media lackeys are decrying the “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric which caused this shooting en masse. And, of course, they mean “conservative” and “Republican” “angry” or “hateful” rhetoric.

But why would anyone think that? Apart from the fact that they are ideologues and propagandists, I mean? There’s no evidence whatsoever that Jared Loughner EVER listened to “right wing talk radio,” or supported Sarah Palin, or was a member of the tea party, or even cared about charged political issues such as health care. The evidence is, rather, that he was severely mentally sick and living in his own twisted world.

They make the prima facia claim (with little or no supporting argument) that the angry partisan political climate can set off the mentally unbalanced. Which is itself a mentally unbalanced claim to make.

A few things, there. First, if this is so, and they really believe that, then how do they justify the eight incredibly angry years of “Bush derangement syndrome”? Why was it not true when Republicans were in power, but not true now that Democrats are in power? The mainstream media is far too pathologically biased and dishonest to show you that the WORST “climate of hate” comes from the left.

Second, why do Democrats, if they really believe their own crap, continue to make such bitter and polarizing comments if such comments can push the already unhinged over the edge? Take our liberal propagandist “sheriff, for instance:

“When you look at unbalanced people, how they respond to the vitriol that comes out of certain mouths about tearing down the government — the anger, the hatred, the bigotry that goes on in this country, is getting to be outrageous,” Dupnik said Sunday.

It’s clear who the sheriff has in mind. As he told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly: “We see one party trying to block the attempts of another party to make this a better country. … We as a country need to look into our souls and into our hearts and say is what we’re doing really in the best interest of this country, or is there something better we can do.”

Got that? The shooting was motivated by the rhetoric of “one party” — the Republicans — trying to stop the Democrats from making this “a better country.” Talk about “hate speech.”

Let me ask you, just for the sake of argument. Suppose that there is some crazed liberal out there in the wings. And said crazed liberal hears his law enforcement say, “We see [the Republican] Party trying to block the attempts of [the Democrat] Party to make this a better country.” And, of course, he’s aghast. What can be done to stop this evil Republican Party from keeping the Democrats from finally making this “a better country”???

Something must be done. Someone must act. By any means necessary. Including – maybe even embracing – violence.

“My client says he had to punish those Republican congressmen. He says the president commanded him to kill those congressmen.”

Now, to set the record straight, having pointed out just a few of Obama’s comments, I don’t think Obama was calling for violence. Because, apparently unlike Democrats, I possess the moral intelligence to understand that he was using the same sort of common metaphors as Sarah Palin has when she has said, “Don’t retreat, reload.” And, on the flip side, I realize that if Sarah Palin is a disgrace, then the president of the United States is far more so, given the very office from which he has said these things.

A reasonable person can’t help but be confused at the constant double-standard that comes from Democrats. If this kind of rhetoric is wrong, if it leads to violence, then why do they keep doing it themselves??? And why do they denounce Republicans even while they themselves are doing the very thing they say is evil to do??? And how do their skulls not explode from containing all the contradictions???

Let me offer something that happened to me a couple of years ago to show how political rhetoric – whether “angry” or “hateful” or not – has little if anything to do with setting off an unhinged mind.

A very sweet lady in my church asked several of her friends to help her with a big garage sale she wanted to have. Being a sweet lady, she asked the police if it was okay to put out signs around town notifying drivers of her yard sale. Which most people just do. And, being a sweet lady, when the police told her people weren’t supposed to put out such signage, she didn’t do it. Which meant that her yard sale – with all the effort that went into it – was twisting in the wind.

So I made a nice, big sign that said “Yard Sale” along with the address, drove to the main drag in town, and waved that darned thing around to first the northbound traffic, then the southbound traffic, and so on and so forth. And when I came back a couple hours later, I was assured that my incredibly soul-numbing boredom had not been in vain: a lot of people suddenly started showing up.

I love sweet little old ladies. And don’t you dare mess with one while I’m anywhere nearby, if you like your teeth.

Well, all that was to bring up something that happened while I was holding that sign that merely said “YARD SALE” with a house address. A woman walking on the sidewalk came up to me, took a look at the sign, and screamed, “Yard Sale! YARD SALE!” And just went off on me in an uncontrollable rant for two or three minutes.

I never said a single word to her. There was no point. She was clearly not in her right mind, and there’s no point trying to argue with or reason with deranged people.

And the point is, anything can set these people off. Absolutely anything. Even the words “Yard Sale” on a cardboard sign, accompanied by the probably wide-eyes of a helpless man staring into the bulging eyeballs of the insane.

It’s not a matter of “avoid the anger.” Avoid everything. Shut down the economy. Close the stores. Stay in your homes. Shut off all the television and radio stations. Make tinfoil hats. Because even your very thoughtwaves can set these people off.

So this notion that Republicans and conservatives must “tone down the hate” – while of course Democrats may continue to feel free to unleash hell – is so paranoid and so unhinged that I can’t help but watch these Democrats and these reporters and see the face of that whacked-out woman going off on me about my yard sale sign.

Sheriff Dupnik saying that what people hear on the radio and on television makes them do the things they do could well come right out of the brain of Jared Loughner, who merely replaces “radio and television” with “government.” It’s equally insane.

I can easily picture the “sheriff,” and liberals like Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow cringing in lead-lined bunkers hoping that their tinfoil hats are thick enough to prevent Sarah Palin – who already lives rent-free in their heads – from taking over that final molecule and forcing them to do her evil bidding.

That’s basically the message of the left right now: “Put on your tinfoil hats, people! Because your all in danger of having your minds commandeered by rightwing hate!”

And, at risk of boring you, that was precisely what Jared Loughner’s disturbed and paranoid brain feared: mind control.

To make the Democrats’ despicable argument all the more so, based on their view, you could reasonably blame Gabrielle Giffords for the shooting. Jared Loughner was listening to her, and she clearly didn’t say the right thing – which incited him to violence.

Every single journalist and every single politician who demands that people – and particularly conservative people – tone down their political views should be immediately discredited as nothing more than despicable ideological hacks.

What we are seeing is the murder of seven victims. Not just six. The seventh is truth, which is now being contorted and ripped beyond the breaking point for the sake of partisan political ideology.

And I’ll end by saying this: the record of history could not be more clear: the worse monsters in political history have without fail been those who have demanded that their opponents be silent. The last thing we should ever want to follow is the political rationale that says, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”

This is in response to the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the nineteen shooting victims, and the six murdered citizens, in Tuscon, Arizona on Saturday at the hands of someone who is clearly mentally ill.

It sounds rather crazy to have such a title to many, I’m sure. After all, isn’t it Democrats who are constantly trying to criminalize gun ownership? And isn’t it Republicans who are constantly trying to keep guns legal?

Yes. Which is exactly why I blame Democrats every single iota as much as the most liberal Democrat blames Republicans for criminals or crazies with guns.

First of all, we have a constitutional RIGHT to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Now, Democrats for years and years have argued that the 2nd Amendment essentially contains a typo, that “militia” should have appeared twice, but somehow the phrase “the people” got stuck in.

But “the people” really means “militia.”

So when you see “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances,” it really doesn’t apply to citizens. It only really applies to militias. Militias have the right to assemble and redress the government. You “people” just stay shut in your homes and leave the government alone.

And go through your Constitution and make the necessary corrections. Replace every occurrence of the phrase “the people” with “militia.” And see how many freedoms you would lose and just what an absurdly laughable interpretation the Democrats have for the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment clearly and obviously provides militias AND the people (i.e., the citizens of the United States, you and me) with the right to keep and bear arms. And then it all but tells the Democrats to keep their paws off our guns (“… shall not be infringed”).

But the Democrats DO infringe. And infringe, and infringe some more.

So we run into a problem: every time Republicans – who actually care about their Constitution – do anything to restrict gun rights or gun ownership, it ends up being a net-loss for guns and for the 2nd Amendment. And every significant act involving a gun becomes the next cause to take away guns, as the following Newsweek article exudes:

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste,” Rahm Emanuel famously said in 2008. The same goes for a shooting spree that gravely wounds a beloved congresswoman. Congress won’t enact gun control, as it did in the wake of the assassinations of Martin Luther King and Robert F. Kennedy in 1968, but perhaps something positive can come from this.

If Republicans try to make it tougher for criminals or crazies to get their hands on guns, Democrats will use that measure to shut the door all the tighter on every single law-abiding citizen to exercise their constitutional guarantees. As I will show later in this article.

So because of Democrat refusal to recognize the clear and obvious meaning of the 2nd Amendment, we have an impasse. We have an impasse which prevents common-sense laws from being passed.

This is what should happen: Democrats should now and for all time recognize that every single law-abiding American in every single state and in every single town has the right to keep and bear arms. And Republicans should in response begin to help make it tougher to get guns, so that criminals and the mentally ill do not fall through the gaping holes that the intransigence has imposed.

Unless and until that day happens, Republicans will have no choice but to fight every gun law, because they will continue to correctly see that Democrats and liberal judicial activists will continue to use every law passed to prevent “the people” from possessing guns.

Here’s the bottom line: liberals often repeat the principle stated by William Blackstone, “Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.” Benjamin Franklin took it even further, and stated “that it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer.”

And here here. Even though it creates a system in which the innocent too often are denied justice as the guilty go free.

But lets ALSO acknowledge that the same Constitution also clearly affirms that it is better that ten, or a hundred criminals and psychos get their hands on guns than that just one innocent Person should be deprived.

If you liberals like the first principle, quit being a hypocrite and like the second one, too.

For me, I do not want to be forced to wait helplessly for the police to maybe never show up as vicious criminals terrorize – or do worse – to my family. Rather, if you try to enter my home, scumbags, I’ve got something for you.

It is every bit as evil for any society to deny a person (the singular form of “the people”, by the way) to be able to defend himself, or herself, or his or her family, from violence, as it would be to convict innocent people to make sure the guilty don’t go free.

Nor let me fail to mention that the founding fathers clearly intended an armed citizenry to be a powerful obstacle against government tyranny. That the founding fathers would want a tyrannous American government overthrown as much as they would want a tyrannous British government overthrown.

Any good gun law that truly has a chance of preventing criminals or crazies like Jared Loughner from obtaining guns necessarily would depend on a strict registration and licensing of every single gun. And Republicans will RIGHTLY refuse any such registration and licensing until Democrats codify it into the law of the land that such a registry can NEVER EVER be used to take away our guns.

What we need to see is this: a powerful understanding of the 2nd Amendment guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms such that, if any elected official, officer of the court, sworn law enforcement officer, or government employee undermines that law, they will immediately be recognized to have violated their constitutional oath and thereby disqualify themselves for their duties as politicians, judges, lawyers, law enforcement officers, or bureaucrats. And let the anti-gun policies which include heavy taxation and burdensome regulation be expunged.

And when that occurs, then let every gun be registered. Let there be a listing of every individual who owns a gun(s), with every serial number and even with every ballistic sample from every gun, be taken.

If someone is convicted of a felony, or if someone’s mental condition deteriorates beyond a legal threshhold, then immediately the list is checked: ‘does this individual have a gun?’ And if so that gun is removed.

That’s the kind of system we need. And it is the system we cannot have as long as the future question of the constitutional guarantee of gun ownership is in any way, shape or form an open question.

We’ve seen the sorts of laws Democrats have proposed being used against “the people” before in many other parts of the world. We have seen it in tyrannous, totalitarian regimes throughout history. First they demanded the registration of weapons; then they came and confiscated those weapons. And no one could stand up against them, because only they had the guns.

The other thing it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out is that if we pass laws taking away the right to keep guns, only the law-abiding would follow the law. Criminals would not follow the law; I mean, dang, just look up the definition of “criminal.”

Therefore, until our law is clearly and completely understood to guarantee the right of gun ownership by every single law-abiding and mentally sane citizen, you will never see the kind of gun control laws that our society obviously needs.

Which is why I rightly blame Democrats for the lack of gun control laws that would prevent crazies like Jared Loughner from getting their hands on guns.

Democrats, the “living, breathing document, open to interpretation” theory of the Constitution needs to go down the drain once and for all in order for meaningful gun regulations to ever succeed.

There’s another saying that is appropriate here: “A lie can get halfway around the world before the truth can even get its boots on.” And that’s particularly true when “the truth” – in this case Fox News – is more like the Keystone Cops.

In this case, Fox News seems to have tied its left bootlace to its right bootlace and fallen flat on its face. In fact, they fell so hard, with their noses in some cow pie, that they could possibly even see the ratings of CNN and MSNBC.

There are too many people who just can’t understand that Barack Obama is a shameless, cynical liar. They think, “Well, if the government says it, it must be true.” When they really should be thinking just the opposite.

The use of marijuana has been linked to mental illness, including psychosis, and increases the kind of paranoia exhibited by Loughner in his writings.

However, Jennifer Griffin of Fox News recklessly and irresponsibly claimed on Sunday morning that the killer was a political conservative. Using Obama officials as her sources, she reported that “intelligence gathered by the Department of Homeland Security and shared with state officials across the United States” had revealed “a strong suspicion” that the shooter was influenced by a conservative publication called American Renaissance (AR).

This publication is on the right side of the political spectrum and is politically incorrect because of its criticism of racial preference and “diversity” programs and immigration policies that weaken the strength of a country. It has scheduled a Feb. 4–Feb. 6, 2011, conference in Charlotte, North Carolina.

One would have expected that a “conservative” news channel dedicated to fairness and balance would not be so quick to publicize the charges or “suspicions” of some anonymous federal officials in the Obama Administration who seem anxious and eager to smear conservative groups.

But without bothering to get a response, Griffin claimed, “This is based on some of the videos he posted on YouTube. This group’s ideology is anti-government, anti-immigration, and anti-Semitic.”

But a review of Loughner’s YouTube videos finds nothing about American Renaissance.

To make matters worse, it turns out that Griffin not only did not contact AR for a response but badly mischaracterized the nature of the publication.

Jared Taylor of American Renaissance told AIM that he first heard about the charge from CNN, not Fox News. He said that when he found out about the story on the Fox News website, he emailed several Fox News correspondents denouncing the allegations. “I got no response,” he said.

Eventually, he was contacted by James Rosen of Fox News. But that was after Fox News analyst Juan Williams, recently fired by National Public Radio, cited the charges as if they were true on Fox News Sunday.

Apparently using the questionable Griffin story as his source, Williams was quick to claim “there are connections between him [the shooter] and this group, American Renaissance, I think they’re called, and they are strongly anti-immigrant, they’re anti-Semitic and they’re anti-government.”

Nothing Williams said was backed up by the facts and he did not cite any.

Taylor told Rosen that the charges are “scurrilous” and that he took issue with the reference to his group being “anti-ZOG” (Zionist Occupational Government).

“That is complete nonsense,” Taylor said. “I have absolutely no idea what DHS [Department of Homeland Security] is talking about. We have never used the term ‘ZOG.’ We have never thought in those terms. If this is the level of research we are getting from DHS, then Heaven help us.”

In a statement on the publication’s website, Jared Taylor went into more detail and countered: “No one by the name of Loughner has ever been a subscriber to American Renaissance or has ever registered for an American Renaissance conference. We have no evidence that he has even visited the AR website.”

He added, “American Renaissance condemns violence in the strongest possible terms, and nothing that has ever appeared in it pages could be interpreted as countenancing it.”

A subsequent story by Griffin claimed that American Renaissance was mentioned “in some of his [Loughner’s] internet postings and federal law enforcement officials are investigating Loughner’s possible links to the organization.”

But no evidence of such postings or links was cited or has surfaced.

In this Griffin story, the source became a “law enforcement memo based on information provided by DHS and obtained by Fox News…” She falsely characterized American Renaissance as “a pro-white racist organization.”

Giving it a high degree of credibility, Greta Van Susteren of Fox News insisted it was “an internal memo” that was “put out by DHS” and reproduced the entire thing.

While American Renaissance is critical of government affirmative action programs and unrestricted immigration, there is no evidence of anti-Semitism, and there is no evidence that American Renaissance by any objective standard is a racist organization. It does deal with racial issues. But so does the Congressional Black Caucus.

The memo in question supposedly said, in relation to AR, “…no direct connection—but strong suspicion is being directed at AmRen / American Renaissance. Suspect is possibly linked to this group. (through videos posted on his myspace and YouTube account.). The group’s ideology is anti government, anti immigration, anti ZOG (Zionist Occupational Government), anti Semitic. Gabrielle Gifford is the first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government. She was also opposite this group’s ideology when it came to immigration debate.”

Jared Taylor countered: “AR is not anti-government, anti-Semitic, or anti-ZOG, as is clear from the 20 years of back issues that are posted on our website. The expression ‘ZOG’ has never appeared in the pages of AR, and we have always welcomed Jewish participation in our work. Many of the speakers at American Renaissance conferences have been Jewish.”

What’s more, Taylor noted that, “Gabrielle Giffords is not the ‘first Jewish female elected to such a high position in the US government.’ Barbara Boxer has represented California in the Senate from 1993, and Dianne Feinstein has done so since 1992. There are at least six Jewish congresswomen listed by Wikipedia as currently serving in the House. If this memo is typical of the research done by the Department of Homeland Security, our country is in serious danger. I telephoned DHS today to try to get the bottom of this nonsense, but apparently there is no homeland security on Sundays. The person who answered the phone said no one is there and that I should call back on Monday morning.”

He added, “Fortunately, some of the media organizations that have been reporting this story have contacted me, and have reported my assertion that American Renaissance knows nothing at all about Jared Loughner, that we condemn all violence, and that we cannot possibly be described as anti-Semitic.”

After going on the air with the false and malicious charges about AR, Fox News finally published a story with a response to the charges under the headline, “American Renaissance Denies DHS Charges, Any Affiliation With Shooter.”

A later Fox News story reported, “New details are emerging about Loughner as a law enforcement memo based on information provided by the Department of Homeland Security and obtained by Fox News suggests he may have ties to the American Renaissance group, though it’s unclear if he was directly affiliated with the publication or group.”

It is apparent that Fox News is backing away from the story, after already doing damage to and smearing the organization.

By this point, however, dozens of liberal-left media outlets and bloggers have already cited Fox News as the source of the claim that the killer was involved in a conservative group.

Taylor called for an investigation into how and where DHS obtained the bogus information and who leaked it to Fox News.

“I’d like to know where they are getting this nonsense,” Taylor told AIM. “What else are they telling other people?”

Ooh, ooh! Let me answer that one! They’re telling lies, Mr. Taylor. Demagogic lies. It’s what Obama does. He has the Midas touch in that department of political talent.

Is the Obama Homeland Security totally incompetent? You bet it is. But you don’t have to be competent when you can lie like a snake in the grass; all you need to be able to do is blame your failures on some poor scapegoat with the help of a an either idiotic or biased media.

It sounds like the Obama DHS is at a point of impending implosion, though: it’s one thing to foment lies; it’s quite another to actually believe your own lies. It sounds like the Department of Homeland Security has degenerated to the point where they are believing their own lies.

Fox News is the most accurate and most trusted name in news, as studies and surveys clearly demonstrate. But it’s success has sadly transformed it into “the mainstream media.” And many of its journalists have come from other propagandists I mean networks.

We can also report that shooter Jared Loughner was certainly not a conservative. In his own words, his favorite books included The Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf. Communism is obviously as left wing as it gets, and see here about Nazism, which for what it’s worth means “National Socialism.” In that article, I point out that:

Marxism simply redefined fascism as its polar opposite in order to create a bogeyman: If Marxism was progressive, fascism became conservative. If Marxism was left wing, fascism had to be right wing. If Marxism championed the proletariat, then fascism had to champion the bourgeoisie. If Marxism was socialist, fascism needed to be capitalist.

I further offered that:

“The influence of Marxist scholarship has severely distorted our understanding of fascism. Communism and fascism were rival brands of socialism. Whereas Marxist socialism is predicated on an international class struggle, fascist national socialism promoted a socialism centered in national unity. Both communists and fascists opposed the bourgeoisie. Both attacked the conservatives. Both were mass movements, which had special appeal for the intelligentsia, students, and artists, as well as workers. Both favored strong centralized governments and rejected the free economy and the ideals of individual liberty.” [Gene Edward Veith, Jr., Modern Fascism: Liquidating the Judeo-Christian Worldview, p. 26].

And I rightly concluded:

And if the Nazis didn’t represent the far left, they were at best the right wing of the extreme left wing.

I mean, seriously: the difference between Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, and their respective oppressive, paranoid and murderous totalitarian regimes, is what, exactly???

Pathetically, the last and strongest bastion of Marxism in America today reside in our universities and are allowed to wear the title “professor.” And then you find out thatTHE most leftist and THE most intolerant, “thought-controlling” field in America is that of university professors. And they get to influence and shape minds just like Jared Lougher’s.

I would at this point mention another fact about Loughner that the AP brought out, how he was “obsessed with how words create reality.” And, like the atheism, that is a telltale of liberalism. It is deconstructionism, it is existentialism, it is nihilism, it is postmodern.

Jonah Goldberg said it better than I could:

For more than sixty years, liberals have insisted that the bacillus of fascism lies semi-dormant in the bloodstream of the political right. And yet with the notable and complicated exceptions of Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom, no top-tier American conservative intellectual was a devotee of Nietzsche or a serious admirer of Heidegger. All major conservative schools of thought trace themselves back to the champions of the Enlightenment–John Locke, Adam Smith, Montesquieu, Burke–and none of them have any direct intellectual link to Nazism or Nietzsche, to existentialism, nihilism, or even, for the most part, Pragmatism. Meanwhile, the ranks of the leftwing intellectuals are infested with ideas and thinkers squarely in the fascist tradition. And yet all it takes is the abracadabra word “Marxist” to absolve most of them of any affinity with these currents. The rest get off the hook merely by attacking bourgeois morality and American values–even though such attacks are themselves little better than a reprise of fascist arguments.” — Jonah Goldberg, Liberal Fascism, p. 175.

Jared Loughner is also profoundly unAmerican. His claimed favorite video at his Youtube account is of the US flag being torched. Which clearly makes him a very different critter the left has characterized the “flag-worshiping” Republicans who read the Constitutions “like a sacred text.”

Loughner, an ardent atheist, began to characterize people as sheep whose free will was being sapped by the monotony of modern life.

Surveys clearly demonstrate that the less religious – or more atheistic – a person is, the more likely they are to be politically liberal. Which is to say we’re not just saying Jared Loughner is a liberal based on rhetoric, but rather that he is probably a liberal based on the laws of statistics and probability.

the tragedy wouldn’t change this basic fact: for the past two years, many conservative leaders, activists, and media figures have made a habit of trying to delegitimize their political opponents

But isn’t the New Yorker merely trying to delegitimize their political opponents, the conservatives? I mean, how can the people who do what the left are claiming conservatives do possibly be legitimate?

Which means their argument and all their claims and stories become pure ad hominem.

Both sides “target” vulnerable seats. Any Democrat who “targets” Sarah Palin is a vile piece of slime. Because your party does the exact same thing [please see my update at the bottom of this article].

The only thing they can point to in demonizing Republicans is the fact that Rep. Gifford is a Democrat. And that is clearly true. However, she is a blue dog Democrat who has described herself as “conservative.” And one of the murdered victims was a very conservative federal judge (Judge John Roll) who was appointed by George Bush. Judge Roll was there to thank Rep. Giffords for trying to get more judges to deal with the massive illegal immigration crisis.

This event ought to be something that transcends the political arguments and the debate over which party should run America that constantly goes on. Because ANY act of violence which accompanies a political statement of any kind undermines ALL of us by eroding our freedom and liberty.

You cannot have a democratic republic in a police state. And the more politically violent any group or individuals become, the more police powers become necessary to impose order.

I don’t care what your politics are; if you are an American, this is a terrible, tragic day and a genuinely evil event.

The website Daily Kos has also deleted a diary about Rep. Gabrielle Giffords entitled “My Congresswoman Voted Against Pelosi, Now She’s Dead To Me,” but so far has not deleted a post by founder Markos Moulitsas that lists Giffords’ district among those on their “target list,” and noted that “Not all of these people will get or even deserve primaries, but this vote certainly puts a bulls eye on their district.” (emphasis ours).

Please explain to me why Sarah Palin’s use of surveyor symbols or whichever angry conservative comments resulted in Gabrielle Giffords being shot rather than leftwingers putting her on their “bulls eye” “target list,” or influential liberals like Moulitsas saying that Giffords is “dead to me.” Because I’d really like to know.